-
-
Originally Posted by Hoop
Belg ... Maybe we don't mind which two of the major parties get in..eh...both are very good stable political parties with Centre bias
Except this time around Labour propose introducing bureaucracy which will serve no purpose and in fact do more harm than good. Namely the GST and EQC - both complete nonsense. They're not for me.
-
The thing I can't understand is that Labour and National are coming out with policy that is quite different. e.g. raising retirement age, capital gains tax, asset sales etc yet National still look likely to win easily at the election. I can only think that the greedies(baby boomers) who have had cradle to the grave welfare all their lives don't want to give anything back for NZ's future generations unless it’s their own kids and National is playing to that but do baby boomers make up that much of the population? Could be John Key seems like a nice guy and Phil Goff lacks any charisma and although I say policy is more important than personalities I struggle to be bothered reading the policy coming out in the herald.
Labour has only come out with some sensible sounding policy as they were likely to lose anyway but to me it has greatly improved their appeal. The capital gains tax might be the clincher for me all though fluffing around with GST on fruit and veg seems like a big waste of time and a vote grabbing exercise. Although I would have to wait to 67 to receive any superannuation but if I had my way I may not get any anyway as I think the superannuation surcharge should be brought back in as well as death duties while looking to lower income tax and GST. I also think trusts should be legislated away as I struggle to see any worthwhile use for the discretionary family trust that isn't already provided by limited liability companies. It might save a lot of arguments and legal and court costs as well. As long as Trusts are available to game the system people will use them. Myself included.
Rather than leaving NZ Belgarion why don't you support a party that has policy that is aligned with your beliefs. People don't seem to want to admit supporting any particular party but if more and more respected people weren't afraid to show support for particular parties the rest of us could be more easily persuaded to change.
Although rabid political party supporters on the left or right always come across as a bit extremist and scary.
Too many kiwis see National Super as a "right" not a "privilege". Students used to think that free tertiary education was a "right" not a "privilege".
Disclaimer; Middle lower class, not particularly wealthy but not entirely sure that self interest would swing me another way if I was wealthier.
Last edited by Aaron; 13-11-2011 at 12:29 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Aaron
The thing I can't understand is that Labour and National are coming out with policy that is quite different. e.g. raising retirement age, capital gains tax, asset sales etc yet National still look likely to win easily at the election. I can only think that the greedies(baby boomers) who have had cradle to the grave welfare all their lives don't want to give anything back for NZ's future generations unless it’s their own kids and National is playing to that but do baby boomers make up that much of the population?
And some of us baby boomrs have paid a fortune in tax, such as the Muldoon period where my marginal rate was 66%. Do I need the super? No I won't (2 years to go) but for all that, it's a very small rebate on the tax I am paying, so I'll certainly take it, not that I'll use it personally. CGT is prettyt much an envy tax to pacify the masses who seem to think you can buy and sell properties or other assetts and not pay tax, and that's simply not the case. There are big downsides to CGT, mainly it stops things happening, but for all that I'll go along with it as long as it has a repatriation clause similar to USA. Otherwise - forget it.
Last edited by fungus pudding; 17-04-2013 at 08:23 AM.
-
Automatic stabilisers are the thing.
In biology/evolution the lazy ignorant unwashed and stupid don't manage to reproduce and are eliminated from the gene pool.
In politics the lazy ignorant unwashed and stupid (a) can't be bothered/understand how to register (b) if they do can't be bothered to vote on the day.
This is a natural automatic stabiliser in favour of National.
-
Originally Posted by Major von Tempsky
Automatic stabilisers are the thing.
In biology/evolution the lazy ignorant unwashed and stupid don't manage to reproduce and are eliminated from the gene pool.
In politics the lazy ignorant unwashed and stupid (a) can't be bothered/understand how to register (b) if they do can't be bothered to vote on the day.
This is a natural automatic stabiliser in favour of National.
But there are more Pauls than Peters, so socialist parties who always propose robbing Peter to pay Paul have an unfair advantage. Peter doesn't stand a chance. NZ will always favour socialist parties, which pretty much describes all parties with the exception of the Libertarians.
-
Originally Posted by fungus pudding
But there are more Pauls than Peters, so socialist parties who always propose robbing Peter to pay Paul have an unfair advantage. Peter doesn't stand a chance. NZ will always favour socialist parties, which pretty much describes all parties with the exception of the Libertarians.
The polls would indicate that there are more Peters than Pauls. I guess National is buying more votes than Labour these elections.
-
Originally Posted by Aaron
The polls would indicate that there are more Peters than Pauls. I guess National is buying more votes than Labour these elections.
Statistics tell us there are more Pauls. The polls tell us that the Peters see the policies that Labour is currently spouting as nonsense.
-
Note that the reaction of two random passersby that TVNZ stopped for the news tonight was that it was a private conversation - end of story.
Now, if you Belge had a private conversation with a friend and you were seized upon by the media to disclose it (ok, unlikely because you are not a celebrity) and were threatened that unless you disclosed/proved exactly what was in the conversation they would assume you were discussing (a) paedophile sex tours of Thailand and (b) methamphetamine P drug deals
and would publish lurid allegations and stories on that basis what would your reaction be? What would your reaction be if they kept following the same tack?
Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer Yes or No only.
If its ok to beat the News of the World to death for illegal eavesdropping why isn't it ok to beat the Sunday Herald to death for illegal eavesdropping?
If it was all a mistake why didn't the Herald apologise and hand the tape over?
Instead it secretly made another copy of the secret tape and handed it over to another media player. Hardly the actions of an innocent unpremeditated party.
-
Originally Posted by belgarion
I think its important for a party that is trying to win the election on personality not policy that a discussion that may reflect badly on its most important personality, is not let out of the bag.
The media were there to broadcast smiles and handshakes not to find out what makes the two John's tick and what they really think about things. Media should stick to their job, eh John.
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks